https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170839 Third-party weigh-bridge records, when corroborated by witness statements, matched clearance entries, excess quantities, seizure and shortage evidence, were treated as sufficient proof of clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods, sustaining duty, interest and penalty against the ingot manufacturers. Separate penalty under Rule 209A was not maintained against a company alleged to have bought non-duty-paid goods, because it had already been proceeded against separately for manufacture and removal from unaccounted material, making additional penalty unnecessary. The result was partial allowance of the batch: revenue succeeded in the supplier matters and failed in the penalty matters against the company. en-us Tue, 13 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170839 Third-party weigh-bridge records, when corroborated by witness statements, matched clearance entries, excess quantities, seizure and shortage evidence, were treated as sufficient proof of clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods, sustaining duty, interest and penalty against the ingot manufacturers. Separate penalty under Rule 209A was not maintained against a company alleged to have bought non-duty-paid goods, because it had already been proceeded against separately for manufacture and removal from unaccounted material, making additional penalty unnecessary. The result was partial allowance of the batch: revenue succeeded in the supplier matters and failed in the penalty matters against the company. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170839